to worry about the accused?

[WitchWay]

DLT for example. How is anything going to be proven? Are people jumping on a bandwagon or am I very wrong to even think that? I don't condone abuse - far from it - but surely they can't all have been sailing along in JS's wake - can they?

Are there? I haven't seen any.

You should have gone to Specsavers.

Show me.

To the OP and SuzanneUK:

YABVVVVVVU.

Hope you don't have daughters.

No Love
Butt

Oops. There were only 11 replies when I started my post. I'm easily distracted.

Hope you don't have daughters.

And I hope you never have a son accused falsely of rape.

it is ridiculously difficult to get a sexual assault case to guilty verdict

Actually once a case gets to court the conviction rate is higher than for most major crimes - over 50%. The difficulty is getting a case to court in the first place, the most common problem being the victim withdrawing their complaint.

the difference is the defendant and his team can make up any old evidence the like with no requirement to prove it's true

Rubbish. If the defence put forward evidence without any corroboration the jury is likely to ignore it. And if we want to get into made up evidence, how about the evidence given by a certain forensic "expert" that led to the false convictions of at least half a dozen women for killing their children. There are many other high profile miscarriages of justice where the prosecution witnesses, including the police and expert witnesses, made claims that were simply untrue.

Both sides are under the same pressure to make the evidence they put forward stand up. The jury then, in theory, has to decide whether or not the prosecution has proved its case. However, the research available suggests that a significant proportion of juries make their decision on the balance of probability.

None of the above is in any way an opinion on the guilt or innocence of DLT or the other accused.

"And I hope you never have a son accused falsely of rape."

I hope I never have a son falsely accused of anything.

However, your post is absolutely correct Snakey.

Suzanne, this is the third thread I've seen you make these strawman arguments on. Nobody has said the things you're accusing 'good old mumsnet' or 'man-hating feminists' of saying.

Victims have had the courage to come forward because they see sexual assault being taken more seriously in the courts, and in society in general. And in some cases they probably blamed themselves for many years, because the sexual contact was in some way consensual. The thing is though, if under 16 you cannot give valid consent.

In addition to this they thought they didn't have a cat in hell's chance of succeeding with their complaint against well-known celebrities, especially when a few years had gone by.

Hello everyone,

Thank you to those who reported this to us. We'd like you remind everyone of our talk guidelines, and also of the fact that some of the cases mentioned here are ongoing, so we may remove post that could influence any trials.

We also think this would be a good time to link to our rape awareness campaign, We Believe You.

If there are any posts you'd like us to look at, please do report them to us.

Some women come forward to tell their story after decades of silence because they never previously thought they'd be believed but are now encouraged by other women coming forward with similar stories.

Some women, however, seem to be coming forward because a newpaper has offered them a shed-load of money for their stories, on condition that the accused celeb is convicted.

It's all very confusing for juries.

Can anyone who reported this thread please tell me why?????

"Some women, however, seem to be coming forward because a newpaper has offered them a shed-load of money for their stories, on condition that the accused celeb is convicted."

Do you actually have any evidence (I can give you a definition of "evidence" if you need one) for this?

Proud extreme feminist here
Tbh Suzanne I just care more about victims that perpetrators. That's not crazy now is it?
And I honestly do hope you don't have daughters because the chance of a son being falsely accused of rape is so unlikely it's almost negligible but the chance of a daughter being sexually assaulted is sadly far, far higher.

Tbh Suzanne I just care more about victims that perpetrators. That's not crazy now is it?

Not crazy at all, and I feel exactly the same way.

I am however quite concerned about people who are accused of being perpetrators but who have not been convicted.

And I suggest that's not crazy either.

Good old Mumsnet, standing up to misogynists like Suzanne here. She (?) does seem to pop up on a lot of threads at the moment throwing personal insults and derailing/monopolising discussions so they are suddenly all about responding to her.

Annie made the case very early on and very convincingly. And it seems that while false accusing may account for 3% of crimes, accusing the victim of false accusing seems to be pretty universal. Far more horrific for the 97% of victims who are put on trial themselves.

Not a comment on the above cases at all, but I bet most women know someone who has been raped and has probably not reported it, and it is, I would say, rare that any women goes through life without being sexually assaulted at some point - at the very least being verbally abused, groped, or flashed at.

Not to say "all men are rapists" or anything like that, but unfortunately there are a significant minority who cause a problem for women in general.

I feel very, very sorry for anyone falsely accused of anything. But I think this is relatively rare- not that statistics are any comfort if it's you or someone you know directly involved.

I just feel that rapists can more often than not get away with at least one or two rapes in this country. Even worse elsewhere. If they commit five or six then maybe they will get caught and prosecuted.

the chance of a son being falsely accused of rape is so unlikely it's almost negligible

I nevertheless hope you never have suffer the anguish associated with that situation.

standing up to misogynists like Suzanne here

And once again, suggesting that alleged sexual offenders should receive a fair trial is perceived by the hard of thinking as striking a blow against womankind.

And I hope you never experience the anguish of a child of yours being raped and not believed. Which is statistically more likely.

Nobody has said that the accused shod not have a fair trial. These strawman arguments are very tedious.

I think the difference between js and the rest is that the police were informed of js. There was a paper trail from decades before. It was the police decades before who did not do anything but the reports were still there.

SuzanneUk I agree with you entirely.

Just 3% of reported rapes are made up - so what happens if your DS, DH, DB, DF is in that 3%?

When they fear for their lives due to a crime they didnt commit are they supposed to be comforted by that figure?

This thread has become completely ridiculous. No one is pro-rape, everyone has compassion for the victim (whichever side that may be) and hopefully all of us want justice not retribution.?

And once again, Suzanne, nobody has said the accused shouldn't get a fair trial.

It is difficult enough to get a case to court for sexual offences, let alone get a conviction - and as it is enshrined in UK law that people are innocent until proven guilty, I think that the accused have sufficient legal protection.

The victims/witnesses, less so.

Nobody has said the accused shouldn't get a fair trial.

When people attack me for suggesting no more than that the accused should get a fair trial, it seems abundantly clear that they disagree with me on that point.